Oral paclitaxel and dostarlimab with or without trastuzumab in early-stage, high-risk breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant ISPY 2 TRIAL.
Authors: Rebecca Arielle Shatsky, Alexandra Thomas, Christina Yau, Amy Jo Chien, Carla Isadora Falkson, Erica Michelle Stringer-Reasor, Coral Oghenerukevwe Omene, Meghna S. Trivedi, Judy Caroline Boughey, Amy Sanford, Mili Arora, Tara B. Sanft, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Thelma Brown, Nola Hylton, Angela DeMichele, Douglas Yee, Laura Esserman
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2023)

LBA612 Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes including MammaPrint (MP) status to evaluate novel neoadjuvant agents in high-risk breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Oral Paclitaxel and encequidar (OPE) is an oral combination of paclitaxel (P) with a p-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, encequidar. Dostarlimab (D) is an intravenous (IV) PD-1 inhibitor. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm and MP high risk cancers (MP1 = MP high; MP2 = MP ultra-high) were treated starting Oct 5, 2020. Treatment included OPE (Oral P 205mg/m2 + encequidar 12.9mg) on days 1-3 weekly x 12 and D 500 mg IV given q 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) q 2-3 weeks x 4. Patients with HER2+ disease received IV weekly trastuzumab (T) during the first 12 weeks. The control arm was weekly IV P x 12 with or without trastuzumab followed by AC q 2-3 weeks x 4. OPE + D was eligible to graduate [85% chance of success in a 300-person phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint] in any of the pre-defined signatures. Results: 113 (78 HR+HER2-, 17 HR-HER2- and 18 HER2+ patients) received OPE + D +/- T. The control arm included 388 historical controls (201 HR+Her2-, 156 HR-HER2-, 31 HER2+). 77 patients (70 HR+ and 7 HR-) were MP1 and 36 patients (24 HR+ and 12 HR-) were MP2. Safety events of note for OPE + D versus IV P include increased rates of nausea (85% vs. 72%) diarrhea (77% vs. 41%). There was no significant difference in rates of neutropenia (23% vs.17%). Peripheral neuropathy (37% vs. 64%) and alopecia (59% vs. 66%) were significantly decreased. Immune related adverse events (irAEs) were lower than expected. Conclusions: Although both OPE and D have both been shown to have efficacy in other settings, combination therapy with OPE + D did not graduate in any of the predefined subtypes. In the HR+ signature where we would not expect a benefit of D, we see equal response to OPE with decreased rates of peripheral neuropathy and alopecia, which suggest this oral agent may be an attractive alternative to IV P in this subgroup and is under consideration in ISPY 2.2. We did not observe the expected improvement in pCR rates seen with PD-1 inhibitors in the HR- or MP2 subtypes (over P alone historic control). In addition, the irAEs were less than expected. Together these findings suggest interference of OPE with D. A potential mechanism of interference could be change in microbiome with the use of OPE vs. IV P, as the microbiome is known to influence the efficacy of immunotherapy. The source of interference is being investigated. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]